My book We the Elites: Why the US Constitution Serves the Few is now out


If you are interested in my class analysis of the US Constitution you can find my book can now be ordered directly on the Pluto website.
Please get in touch if you are interested in writing a review.
Be well,
Robert Ovetz


Written by 55 of the richest white men, and signed by only 39 of them, the US constitution is the sacred text of American nationalism. Popular perceptions of it are mired in idolatry, myth and misinformation - many Americans have opinions on the constitution but have little idea what it says.

This book examines the constitution for what it is – a rulebook for elites to protect capitalism from democracy. Social movements have misplaced faith in the constitution as a tool for achieving justice when it actually impedes social change through the many roadblocks and obstructions we call 'checks and balances'. This stymies urgent progress on issues like labour rights, poverty, public health and climate change, propelling the American people and rest of the world towards destruction.

Robert Ovetz's reading of the constitution shows that the system isn't broken. Far from it. It works as it was designed to.

Michael Yates

Congratulations, Robert! Following in the footsteps of Charles Beard. Yes, the Constitution aims to disempower the masses of people.


A good analysis of the U.S. Constitution is to be welcomed. The situation today calls for a thoroughly communist approach in a time of open disdain for bourgeois democracy from the Trump camp and the moves mostly from the right to revise the Constitution (if the Supreme Court runs into difficulty with completely rewriting it). Here is a leaflet that aimed at defending capitalist democracy against capitalist authoritarian and fascist rule from a class point of view:

David Walters

Good leaflet. Easy to read even though there is a lot of text.

Memet Çagatay

Congratulations on your new book. However, it would have been better if the last few pages of the introduction was included in the free except. I don't know if you noticed, but there was an article on yesterday's Counterpunch by Nick Licata comparing the US Constitution favorably with the rejected proposal for a new constitution in Chile. His main argument is it was bogged down with myriad of details and directives instead of agreeing on a few principles just as in the "living" US Constitution which can be changed, amended on a whim according to who is in power. Now you're saying that's not the case, in fact, the US Constitution is designed to "accomplish the exact opposite". I wonder, what are your thoughts about Nick Licata's article:


Thank you for the kind messages of support. I will read that piece.
If you would like a sample from the book please email me at: rfovetz@...
Be well,